ArticleInternational orthopaedics2017
Variation in practice preferences in management of open injuries of extremities-an international survey by SICOT research academy.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-Grade Limbs Open Fractures: Time to Find Milestones in the Emergency Setting.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Fracture-related outcome study for operatively treated tibia shaft fractures (F.R.O.S.T.): registry rationale and design.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- External fixation for primary and definitive management of open long bone fractures: the Syrian war experience.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Citations, non-citations and visibility of International Orthopaedics in 2017.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOpen fractures are challenging injuries and there is a lot of variation in practice preferences which may reflect the wide variations in outcome in different units across the world. A survey was done amongst the international community of SICOT membership to document the practice preferences and variations.
methodsAn online questionnaire containing 23 questions which were sub-divided into three sections covering the various aspects of open injury management was sent by email to orthopaedic trauma surgeons across the world. A total of 358 responses were evaluated and presented in this manuscript.
resultsThe SICOT study confirmed wide variation in practice protocols. About 94.7 % of orthopaedic surgeons around the world use the Gustillo Anderson scoring system for assessment of open injury and 50.6 % of surgeons prefer lavage in operation theatre. For lavage, 84.6 % of surgeons preferred normal saline and for antibiotic prophylaxis, 48.3 % used a combination of second generation cephalosporin, metronidazole and an aminoglycoside for a minimum of three to five days. In 88 % of patients, orthopaedic surgeons performed the initial debridement and 69.2 % surgeons aimed for debridement within six hours. Regarding wound management, 43.9 % units preferred and were capable of soft tissue cover within 72 hours and about 26.3 % surgeons combined definitive fixation along with plastic procedure.
conclusionOur study documented wide variations in practice preferences across the world and showed that information and awareness about current guidelines and practices will help many to update themselves in terms of basic questions about open fracture care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.